Zionism serves imperialism

Throughout its history Zionist leaders have licked the boots of whatever capitalist Great Power seemed to serve their interests. The tail does not wag the dog, and Israel and the American ‘Zionist lobby’ do not dictate American foreign policy. They serve it. They provided US imperialism with a convenient alibi to play the role of ‘honest broker’ in the Middle East. They enable the feudal Arab oil princes, whose thrones are propped up by imperialist bayonets, to claim that the Arabs’ enemy is not imperialism as such but Israel and this supposedly all-powerful ‘Zionist lobby’, which pulls the strings in the USA. The 1979 entry for Zionism in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia spells this out in detail.

Zionism

The most reactionary variety of Jewish bourgeois nationalism. Zionism became widespread during the 20th century amongst the Jews in the capitalist countries. Today it is a nationalistic ideology, represented by a ramified system of organisations and a policy expressing the interests of the Jewish big bourgeoisie, which is closely linked with the monopolistic bourgeoisie of the imperialist states. Modern Zionism is militantly chauvinist, racist, anti-communist and anti-Soviet.

Zionism emerged as a political trend in the late 19th century. Its function was to distract the Jewish toiling masses from the revolutionary struggle and to maintain bourgeois dominance over them. To attain these aims, the Zionist ideologists advanced plans for solving the ‘Jewish question’ by creating a ‘Jew state’ with the aid of the great powers. This idea was set forth in Der Judenstaat (The Jews’ State; 1896), published by the Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl, a Zionist ideologist. At the first Zionist Congress, held in Basel in 1897, the World Zionist Organisation (WZO) was founded. It proclaimed that the official goal of Zionism was to “create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law”.

The ideology of Zionism is highly eclectic. It utilises many dogmas of Judaism but also includes theories of bourgeois nationalism and social chauvinism, transformed by Zionist ideologists. Zionist ideology maintains that the Jews in various countries constitute an extraterritorial “single worldwide Jewish nation”. The Jews are a “distinctive”, “unique” people, a people “chosen by god”. All peoples amongst whom the Jews live are in one way or another anti-Semites. Anti-Semitism is a “permanent” phenomenon and assimilation, or the merging of Jews with the surrounding population, is “unnatural and sinful”. The Jews have “historical rights” to the “lands of their Biblical ancestors” (Palestine and its adjoining regions), where they must gather and build a “purely Jewish” and “egalitarian state”.

Zionist ideologists seek to prove the “unbreakable bond of Jews throughout the world” with Zionism, to which they must subordinate their own interests, wherever they may be. The politicised dogmas of Judaism state that the Jews are “chosen by god” and have a messianic task to fulfil. These dogmas, and Judaism’s mythical thesis of the Jews’ “uniqueness”, are constituents of the extreme nationalism, chauvinism and racism inherent in Zionist ideology and practice.

The ideologists of Zionism maintain that the “Jewish question” is “eternal”, “unique” and beyond class considerations. Zionists utilise every means to propagandise the false idea of class peace between toiling Jews and the Jewish bourgeoisie (“all Jews are brothers”). All forms of class struggle amongst Jews are proclaimed to be national treason. The Zionists have always made use of demagogy and tactical manoeuvres in their efforts to conceal the anti-popular, reactionary essence of Zionism, alleging that Zionism is the “national liberation movement of Jews throughout the world”.

After the state of Israel was formed in 1948 on part of Palestine’s territory by a resolution of the United Nations, Zionism became Israel’s official ideology. Its main goals are to secure the unconditional support of Israel by the world’s Jews, to gather the world’s Jews in Israel and to inculcate a Zionist spirit amongst Jews in various countries. Zionism seeks to expand Israel to the boundaries of the “Greater Land of Israel”. To this end, Zionists evoke the thesis of “eternal anti-Semitism”, a situation that they often deliberately instigate.

Zionism is the basis of Israel’s government policy. Zionists have proclaimed the state of Israel to be the homeland of all Jews, wherever they live and whatever their attitude towards Zionism. The 28^th World Zionist Congress, held in Jerusalem in 1972, adopted, in violation of international law, a resolution on the collective obligation of all national [Zionist and pro-Zionist] organisations to aid the Jewish state under any circumstances and conditions, even if this means opposing the respective authorities of the countries with a Jewish population.

Zionism’s main policy has always been one of struggle, both open and covert, against socialism, the international communist and national liberation movements, and the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Immediately after the victory of the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, Zionism unleashed an active struggle against the new Soviet state. After the Second World War (1939–45), amidst a further intensification of the overall crisis of capitalism, the anti-communism and anti-Sovietism of international Zionism assumed still broader dimensions. The shift in the alignment of forces in the world in favour of socialism, the successful resolution of the national question (including the Jewish question) in the USSR, and the Soviet Union’s consistent support of the national liberation struggle of the Arab peoples, have given rise to intensified anti-Soviet and anti-communist Zionist propaganda and activity.

International Zionism strives to undermine the moral and political unity of the peoples of the socialist countries, and to prevent citizens of Jewish nationality from participation in building socialism and communism. Zionism seeks to subvert the relaxation of international tension and in particular the incipient normalisation of Soviet–American relations. As a shock detachment of imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, international Zionism opposes the national liberation movement of the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

In the Near East, the Zionist ruling circles of Israel conduct a policy of aggression and of continuous territorial expansion at the expense of the Arab peoples, particularly the Arab people of Palestine. This policy made Israel an imperialist gendarme in the Near East and was the main cause of the Arab–Israeli military conflicts of 1948–49, 1956, 1967 and 1973. Zionism became one of imperialism’s chief allies in its global struggle against the world liberation movement.

Zionism’s ideological concepts and political plans are implemented by a far-flung, highly centralised system of Zionist and pro-Zionist organisations, directed by centres in the USA and Israel. The administrating and co-ordinating centre of international Zionism – the WZO system – is the Jewish Agency for Israel. The Jewish Agency deals mainly with the immigration of Jews into Israel and acts as the representative of the WZO to the Israeli government. The World Zionist Congress is the de jure highest body of the WZO, which is directed by a group of leaders with close ties to certain imperialist circles in the USA. The executive committee of the WZO has two branches, one in New York and one in Jerusalem.

The WZO directs and controls Zionist organisations in more than 60 capitalist countries. The largest are the Women’s International Zionist Organisation, the World Confederation of United Zionists, the World Labour Zionist Movement, and the Zionist Organization of America. The formally non-Zionist World Jewish Congress (founded 1936), with organisations in 67 capitalist countries, is under the de facto control of the WZO. Directly or indirectly affiliated with these major organisations are a multitude of local Zionist and pro-Zionist organisations, societies and committees, which constitute a unified system of international Zionism. The WZO possesses large financial resources, mainly contributed by Jewish monopolists; some funds are collected by levying substantial dues, which are sometimes compulsory, on the Jewish population.

Many means of mass information are controlled or influenced by Zionist organisations, including many publishing houses and radio, television and film companies in the USA, Western Europe, Latin America, Africa and Australia. International Zionism has always included a variety of ideological currents, political factions and groups: Zionist socialists, political Zionists, spiritual Zionists, religious Zionists, general Zionists and revisionist Zionists (today’s fascist Herut Party and kindred groups). This variety merely reflects the interests of different strata of the Jewish bourgeoisie and does not alter but only masks Zionism’s basically imperialist nature.

Essentially, the differences amongst the various orientations of Zionism do not go beyond disputes over tactics and often reflect the struggle within the Zionist elite for positions of influence.

Marxists have always repudiated the theory and practice of Zionism. VI Lenin revealed the reactionary essence of Zionism, emphasising that its dogmas are reactionary, false and contrary to the interests of the Jewish proletariat. He criticised the Zionists’ theses concerning the unique nature of the Jewish people, the alleged absence of class differences amongst the Jews and the imaginary communality of their interests, explaining that such assertions aimed to distract the Jewish toiling masses from the proletariat’s common class struggle.

The international communist movement denounces the anti-popular, reactionary character of Zionism and Zionist activity in all countries. The document adopted by the International Conference of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1969 appealed for “the launching of the broadest movement of protest … against racial and national discrimination, Zionism, and anti-Semitism, which are incited by capitalist reactionary forces and exploited by them to disorient the masses politically”.

A consistent struggle against Zionism is waged in particular by the Communist Party of Israel (CPI). The CPI proves convincingly that Zionism has always been exploited by the forces of extreme reaction and imperialism, and that the ideology and practices of Zionism are contrary to the interests of Jewish toilers throughout the world and the national interests of the people of Israel. The CPI has shown that the struggle against Zionism is a vital necessity for the people of Israel and for all progressive forces. Denouncing the allegedly classless approach of the Zionists to the ‘Jewish question’ the CPI proves that this question can be resolved only with the victory of democracy and socialism, as evidenced by the experience of the USSR and the other socialist countries. The CPI advocates the brotherhood and friendship of the toilers of all countries, and opposes the anti-Soviet slanderous propaganda and subversive activity of the Zionist leaders and rulers of Israel.

As the overall crisis of capitalism intensifies, the crisis of Zionist ideology and the untenability of all its concepts become increasingly obvious: the overwhelming majority of Jews reject Zionist dogmas. With rare exceptions, the Jewish population of the USSR, like all the peoples of the Soviet Union and the world’s progressive forces, resolutely condemns the aggressive political course of the Zionist ruling clique of Israel. The 30th session of the United Nations General Assembly (November 1975) classified Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination.

The natural and objective process of the assimilation of the Jews is gaining strength throughout the world. In the Jewish communities of the countries of the West and amongst the population of Israel there is an increasing comprehension that the Zionist policies of Israel’s ruling circles may lead the population of Israel to a real national catastrophe.

OLIVER CROMWELL: 1599–1658

Cromwell's statue in Westminster

OLIVER CROMWELL, the leader of the bourgeois English Revolution, died on 3rd September 1658. Cromwell, the MP for Huntingdon, was the leading Parliamentary commander during the English Civil War, which began in 1642 and ended in 1649 with the trial and execution of Charles Stuart and the abolition of the monarchy. The Republic of England, or Commonwealth as it was usually styled in English, was proclaimed soon after.

In 1653 Cromwell became head of state, the Lord Protector. By then the republic Cromwell led included England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, as well as colonies in New England and the Caribbean. During its brief life the Commonwealth became a force in Europe. Culturally it inspired the great poetry of John Milton and Andrew Marvell, and other radical and pacifist religious movements such as the Quakers, who are still with us today.

Oliver Cromwell was succeeded by his son Richard, who was neither a politician nor a soldier. Unable to reconcile republican generals with the demands of the rich merchants and landowners to curb the influence of the New Model Army, Richard Cromwell resigned the following year. The government collapsed. The monarchy was restored in 1660 and the New Model Army was dissolved.

Marxist academics have always recognised the historic role of Cromwell but most bourgeois historians simply dismiss him as an upstart general who made himself dictator, a “king in all but name”, through the might of the New Model Army.

Some Irish nationalists call him a brutal bigoted English invader. Some Protestants, even now, regard Cromwell as a religious reformer who fought for freedom of conscience for all faiths apart from Catholicism, and many in the Jewish community still remember Cromwell as the leader who allowed Jews to live, worship and work in England for the first time since the pogroms of 1290.

But for the bourgeoisie Oliver is best forgotten, even though their ascendancy began when their ancestors took up the gun in the 1640s.

The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia defines bourgeois revolution as “a social revolution whose main task is the destruction of the feudal system or its vestiges, the establishment of the rule of the bourgeoisie, and the creation of a bourgeois state; in dependent and colonial countries the bourgeois revolution also aims at the attainment of national independence…

“…In the early bourgeois revolutions and several revolutions of the 19th century the forces in motion were the bourgeoisie, the peasants oppressed by feudalism, the artisans, and the emerging working class. The bourgeoisie, which at that time played a revolutionary role, was the guide and leader of the popular masses. The bourgeoisie fought against feudal property, but as it itself was composed of property owners, it did not dare to abolish private ownership of land anywhere (although this measure would have met the needs of bourgeois progress). In the early bourgeois revolutions the most revolutionary forces were the toiling lower classes of the countryside and the cities. Bourgeois revolutions achieved their greatest successes when these groups seized the initiative.”

The ruling class abhor revolutionary change today because it threatens their own domination, so they naturally deny that their class ever came to power through it in the first place. For them the English republic is an aberration, a temporary blip in the steady advance of bourgeois progress, which is the myth they teach us in school. If they elevate anything at all it is the ‘glorious revolution’ of 1688, when the last of the Stuarts was deposed and replaced by a king of their own choosing. Though not as bloodless as they claimed – plenty was shed in Ireland to put William of Orange on the throne – the establishment of a monarchy that was the gift of Parliament was achieved without the involvement of the masses, which was precisely what was intended.

OLIVER CROMWELL

Oliver Cromwell

OLIVER CROMWELL, the leader of the bourgeois English Revolution, died on 3^rd September 1658. Cromwell, the MP for Huntingdon, was the leading Parliamentary commander during the English Civil War, which began in 1642 and ended in 1649 with the trial and execution of Charles Stuart and the abolition of the monarchy. The Republic of England, or Commonwealth as it was styled in English, was proclaimed soon after.          

In 1653 Oliver became head of state, the Lord Protector. By then the republic Cromwell led included England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland as well as colonies in New England and the Caribbean. During its brief life the Commonwealth became a force in Europe. Culturally it inspired the great poetry of Milton and Marvell and other radical and pacifist religious movements like the Quakers who are still with us today.

Oliver Cromwell was succeeded by his son, Richard, who was neither a politician nor a soldier. Unable to reconcile republican generals with the demands of the rich merchants and landowners to curb the influence of the New Model Army, Richard Cromwell resigned the following year. The government collapsed. The monarchy was restored in 1660 and the New Model Army was dissolved.

Monarchists see Cromwell as an upstart general who made himself dictator through the might of his New Model Army. For some Protestants Cromwell is still a religious reformer who fought for freedom of conscience for all faiths apart from Catholicism. Many in the Jewish community still remember Cromwell as the leader who allowed Jews to live, worship and work in England for the first time since the pogroms of 1290. But for the bourgeoisie Oliver is best forgotten, even though their ascendancy began when their ancestors took up the gun in the 1640s.

The ruling class abhor revolutionary change today because it threatens their own domination so they naturally deny that their class ever came to power through it in the first place. For them the English republic is an aberration, a temporary blip in the steady advance of bourgeois progress which is the myth they teach us in school. If they elevate anything at all it is the “glorious revolution” of 1688 when the last of the Stuarts was deposed and replaced by a king of their own choosing. Though not as bloodless as they claimed – plenty was shed in Ireland – the establishment of a monarchy that was the gift of Parliament was achieved without the involvement of the masses, which was precisely what was intended.

Engels said that Cromwell was the “Robespierre and Napoleon rolled into one” of the English bourgeois revolution. This is what the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia had to say in its day:

Cromwell was born into a middle gentry family and began his political activity in 1628, when he was first elected to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, within the ranks of the Parliamentary opposition to Stuart absolutism Cromwell became well known only with the convocation in 1640 of the “Long Parliament,” in which he spoke out as an advocate of the interests of the bourgeoisie and the new gentry.

With the beginning of the first civil war against the king (1642 – 46), Cromwell with the rank of captain became head (in September 1642) of a volunteer cavalry detachment. Cromwell strongly advocated the democratisation of the Parliamentary army, and he wanted to attract to it those who would fight against the king out of conviction rather than as mercenaries. In seeking out such “soldiers of God,” Cromwell turned to the yeomanry of eastern England, who were devout Puritans and hostile to outmoded feudal orders.

Cromwell’s peasant cavalry (he commanded a cavalry regiment from the beginning of 1643) soon merited its nickname of “Ironsides” because of its tenacity and discipline. It became the nucleus of the Parliamentary army, which was reorganised upon Cromwell’s initiative at the beginning of 1645 (the “New Model Army”) and in which Cromwell was deputy commander in chief with the rank of lieutenant general. Cromwell’s skill as a general was most clearly manifested in the decisive battles of the first civil war — at Marston Moor (2^nd July 1644) and at Naseby (14^th June 1645), where it was Cromwell’s cavalry that decided the success of these battles.

Although during the first civil war Cromwell reflected to a considerable degree the mood of the revolutionary democracy in the Parliamentary camp, after the victory over the king and the latter’s imprisonment, he retarded and restrained the movement of the popular masses.

This led to a fierce struggle between Cromwell and the Levellers (1647). Caught between three political forces in 1647 — the Presbyterian majority in Parliament, the army, and the imprisoned king — Cromwell showed himself to be a resourceful and evasive politician. Using the army as his principal support, he carried on secret negotiations with the king at the same time, and he dealt harshly with disturbances among the soldiers.

When at the beginning of the second civil war (1648) Cromwell again needed the support of the masses, he made a temporary alliance with the Levellers. In 1648 he captured London, and with the aid of his soldiers he purged the House of Commons of the openly outspoken royalists (”Pride’s Purge” of 6^th December 1648). Under pressure from the lower classes, Cromwell was compelled to agree to the trial and execution of the king, the abolition of the monarchy and the House of Lords, and the proclamation of England as a republic. However the republic that was declared in May 1649 was in fact a dictatorship by the so-called Meek Independents, headed by Cromwell.

The smashing of the Levellers’ uprising and the Diggers’ movement in England itself, the extremely harsh military expedition against rebellious Ireland (1649–50), Cromwell’s Scottish campaign (1650–51), and the plundering of Irish lands all testified to Cromwell’s transformation into the Napoleon of the English Revolution. By his growing conservatism and his hostility to the democratic aspirations of the masses Cromwell merited the trust of the bourgeoisie and the new gentry.

Officially appointed by Parliament in May 1650 as lord general and commander in chief of all the republic’s armed forces, Cromwell proceeded to establish his own personal dictatorship. On 20^th April 1653 he dissolved “the Rump” of the Long Parliament; in December 1653 he was proclaimed lord protector of England, Ireland, and Scotland. This protectorate regime transformed Cromwell into the de facto sovereign ruler of the country, the military might of which, forged during the course of the Revolution, was now placed at the service of the bourgeoisie’s trade and colonial expansion.

Cromwell’s outward grandeur, which reached its apex during these years, could not, however, conceal the weakness of the protectorate system. The class allies who had come to power strove to erect a more tenable barrier against the claims of the popular masses. Famed for his reputation as a regicide, Cromwell was in their eyes an insufficient guarantee against the common people. Cromwell’s right-wing enemies prepared secretly for a restoration of the Stuarts. By his own open anti-democratism Cromwell himself facilitated and expedited this restoration, which was carried out in 1660, shortly after Cromwell’s death.